5.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Moscow. Since 1987 she has been registered as an outpatient of Psychiatric Hospital No. 5 in Moscow. Prior to the events in question, she had never been hospitalised in a psychiatric facility.
6.  In 2005 the applicant’s daughter, who also suffers from a mental disorder, was undergoing inpatient psychiatric treatment in Psychiatric Hospital No. 1 of Moscow (“the PHM”). In April-May 2005 the applicant lodged several complaints with that hospital’s administration alleging improper treatment of her daughter and that the attending psychiatrists had attempted to poison her.
7.  On 13 May 2005 the applicant came to the PHM to visit her daughter and to demand her immediate release from the facility. Ms K., a psychiatrist on duty at the reception noted that the applicant was anxious and delusional and directed her to the head psychiatrist of the hospital, Ms Sh. The applicant was considered to be demonstrating the symptoms of a mental disorder and her hospitalisation was recommended. The applicant did not consent to be hospitalised, but nevertheless was admitted to the PHM at 2:45 p.m.
8.  On 14 May 2005 a medical counselling panel composed of the resident psychiatrists of the PHM diagnosed the applicant with paranoid schizophrenia with a paroxysmal-progredient (shift-like) course, manifested as personality changes and paranoia. The panel also found that the applicant was a danger to herself and others and recommended compulsory inpatient psychiatric treatment. The full text of the panel’s reasoning for its decision to apply for hospitalisation of the applicant reads as follows:
“Admitted to PB 1 [Psychiatric Hospital No. 1] from the outpatient ward due to irregular behaviour (screaming, threatening doctors with reprisals, accusing them of “influencing” and persecution).
The need for hospitalisation is determined by tense/angry affect, [and] delusional ideas of persecution and manipulation, which are controlling the behaviour of the patient. The unpredictability of [her] actions presents an immediate danger to herself and others. Compulsory treatment in a psychiatric hospital is recommended. The participation of relatives in court hearings does not appear possible due to their absence at [the meeting of the] MMC [the medical counselling panel].”
9.  On the same date the PHM applied for judicial authorisation of the applicant’s involuntary hospitalisation under section 29 (a) of the Law of the Russian Federation on Psychiatric Assistance and Guarantees of Citizens’ Rights Related to Its Administration of 1992 (“the Psychiatric Assistance Act 1992”).
10.  On 16 May 2005 the Simonovskiy District Court of Moscow (“the District Court”) received the application for the applicant’s involuntary hospitalisation and scheduled a hearing for 4 p.m. on the same day. The hearing was attended by a prosecutor, the applicant’s attending psychiatrist, and a representative of the PHM. The attending psychiatrist and the PHM’s representative requested the District Court to hold the hearing in the absence of the applicant because she could not participate in it for medical reasons. The hearing was held without the applicant or her representative being present.
11.  The District Court delivered a succinct judgment authorising the applicant’s involuntary hospitalisation. The full facts and reasoning set out in the judgment read as follows:
“[Ms] Zagidulina was hospitalised in the [PHM] on 13 May 2005.
A medical counselling panel convened on 14 May 2005 and established a diagnosis – paranoid schizophrenia.
The Head Physician of the [PHM] lodged an application for involuntary hospitalisation of [Ms] Zagidulina with the court.
The basis for [the applicant’s] compulsory admission to the hospital under section 29 of the Federal Law On Psychiatric Assistance is that she is presently a danger to herself and others.
The patient refused to give her consent to hospitalisation.
Having examined the case materials, having heard the attending psychiatrist, [having regard] to the prosecutor’s opinion supporting the claimant’s application, the court grants the request because it is clear from the medical counselling panel’s report of 14 May 2005, which in the court’s view does not give rise to any doubt that [the applicant] suffers from a psychiatric disorder and needs treatment.”
The applicant was not notified of the judgment.
12.  On 17 June 2005 the applicant was discharged from the PHM.
13.  After her release the applicant became aware that her hospitalisation had been authorised by a court and appealed against the judgment of 16 May 2005. She claimed that the District Court had examined the request for involuntary hospitalisation in her absence and had disregarded the fact that she had not presented any danger and thus had not required inpatient treatment.
14.  On 18 August 2005 the Moscow City Court held an appeal hearing in the presence of the hospital’s representative, the prosecutor, the applicant and her counsel and dismissed the applicant’s appeal. In the relevant part the judgment read as follows:
“... As it is clear from the records of the 16 May 2005 hearing Ms Zagidulina’s attending doctor Ms M. informed the [trial] court that her patient is unable to personally participate in consideration of the application for involuntary hospitalisation due to her state of health.
Under these circumstances the [trial] court had reasons to consider the case in absence of Ms Zagidulina.
The appeal argument that Ms Zagidulina’s state [of mental health] at the moment of hospitalisation did not present any danger to herself or the others is unfounded, because no evidence was presented in the appeal court by ... Ms Zagidulina and her representative to rebut the conclusion of the medical panel of 14 May 2005 and that conclusion had not been challenged through a procedure prescribed by law.
The [trial] court examined the circumstances of the case to a sufficient extent. The relevant facts were properly established. No violation of procedural or substantive law were discovered by the [appeal] panel and therefore there are no reasons for annulment of the judgment ...”
In its judgment of 18 August 2005 the appellate court neither indicated any reasons for the applicant’s detention beyond those presented by the first-instance court nor did it expound on the existing reasoning.
15.  The applicant lodged a supervisory review complaint.
16.  On 20 April 2006 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court annulled the judgments of 16 May and 18 August 2005. In the relevant part the judgment read as follows:
“ ... As it is argued in the supervisory complaint of Ms Zagidulina the application for involuntary hospitalisation was examined in her absence on the basis of an oral statement by the doctor Ms. M about the patient’s inability to participate in [the proceedings] ... due to her state of health.
However, the case file does not contain any evidence that at the moment of consideration of the case by the [trial] court her psychiatric condition was such as to prevent her from personal participation ...
Moreover, the [trial] court’s authorisation does not include any information on the presence of Ms Zagidulina’s representative during consideration of the application for involuntary hospitalisation.
Furthermore, it is not clear from the judicial authorisation on what grounds did the [trial] court conclude that Ms Zagidulina has to be hospitalised against her will ... the application [for hospitalisation] refers to Article 29 “a” of [the Psychiatric Assistance Act 1992] ... according to which a person suffering from a mental disorder may be hospitalised to a psychiatric facility against his will ... if treatment is possible only in an in-patient facility, and the mental disorder is severe and causes immediate danger to himself or the others.
However, the application [for hospitalisation] ... does not specifically mention what was that danger.
Therefore, the [trial] court unreasonably deprived Ms Zagidulina of her rights guaranteed by ... [the Psychiatric Assistance Act 1992].”
The case was remanded to the first-instance court.
17.  On 30 May 2006 the District Court held a new hearing on the hospital’s application for the applicant’s involuntary hospitalisation. The hospital’s representative moved to discontinue the proceedings because the applicant had been discharged from the hospital on 17 June 2005 and the issue was moot. The court granted the motion and discontinued the proceedings relying on the provisions of Articles 220 and 221 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
18.  In 2007 the applicant lodged a lawsuit against the PHM, claiming damages of 100,000 Russian roubles (RUB) (around 2,500 euros (EUR)) for unlawful involuntary psychiatric examination and hospitalisation. She alleged a lack of medical evidence and an absence of compelling reasons for her hospitalisation.
19.  On 29 June 2007 the District Court ruled in favour of the hospital and rejected the applicant’s claims. The District Court examined evidence concerning the applicant’s mental disorder, questioned witnesses and doctors, and reasoned that there had been convincing proof of the need to hospitalise the applicant in May-June 2005. The issue of the applicant’s absence during the initial proceedings authorising her hospitalisation was not examined. On 6 October 2007 the Moscow City Court upheld the lower court’s judgment.
20.  The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the statutory provisions on which the PHM and the domestic courts had relied during her hospitalisation. She alleged that these provisions permitted arbitrary placement of individuals in psychiatric facilities and did not provide for the independent review of medical evidence. On 3 November 2009 the Constitutional Court dismissed the complaint. In the relevant part the judgment read as follows:
“... The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation having examined the materials presented by the applicant finds no grounds to accept her complaint for consideration ...
Determination of a mental disorder diagnosis and decision on involuntary psychiatric treatment are the exclusive right of a psychiatrist or a panel of psychiatrists ... which is one if the guarantees against arbitrariness of hospitalisation ... [I]n absence of the psychiatrists’ conclusion on the need for hospitalisation ... it is impossible in principle ...
Constitutionality of [the provisions of Psychiatric Assistance Act 1992] is [further] challenged by the applicant, since these provisions [allegedly] permit involuntary treatment of a citizen without authorisation of an independent body ...
The term ‘independent body’ may be understood as ‘a body having no interests in involuntary treatment of the patient and independent from the persons, who have such interest’ ...
Accordingly ... a court may be a competent independent body ...”